Article: Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory [InfoWorld]

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by MacJunky

Fast enough to operate decently, yes. I still end up crunching my 250GB and 500GB single platter Seagates though.

I don't crunch my 250 at all.. I put my swap files onto my larger drives and leave the 250 for OS and Programs.

[LaughingCrow]

Peter Bright at Ars Technica tried the monitoring programs and says this:

“So it was little surprise that, upon checking my reported stats on XPnet, I found that I too was in the "alarming" position of having virtually no free memory. A quick glance at Task Manager revealed the truth. Though my "free" memory is indeed negligible, this is because so much is used by cache. The important number is not "free," but "available." The "available" memory includes both memory that is free, and memory that can be trivially made available, and this figure is far more representative of the true amount of memory available to applications. The vast majority of cached memory can be freed up near-instantly, since it is used up merely by cached data from disk.”

Behind the Windows 7 memory usage scaremongering

[headsh0t]

Wow they got some real winners over at XPnet. Maybe if they weren't stuck in 2001 they would know how Vista and Win7 use their RAM. I'm guessing that last comment from "ST" is SoulTribunal??

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Correction large sized hard drives are possibly slow.

My 250gb single platter Seagate is plenty fast.

A typical HD has an average read speed of about 100MB/s. DDR2-800 has a transfer speed of 6400MB/s. You may think your HD is fast, but RAM is still 64 times faster.

[Perineum]

Originally Posted by LarkStarr

there's nothing detrimental about using all the ram effectively. there's a whole slow of problems when going 220 kph..

PFFFT.

Have you gone 220kph? There is absolutely no problems with it. It's just a bit quicker than 110kph.

But I do like your point about 220 and slow. Why do 220kph when you can do 240kph+?

[MacJunky]

Originally Posted by enaberif

I don't crunch my 250 at all.. I put my swap files onto my larger drives and leave the 250 for OS and Programs.

I put my programs on a 640GB WDC Black and leave the 250 for just my OS and swap. I also barely touch my swap unless I am doing something really crazy that maxes my 4GB of RAM. The 500s are general random storage drives; soon to be replaced with a couple 1.5TB LPs once I get a good drive back for the one I RMAd.

[bovine.baron]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Just because a car has a speedometer that goes to 220 I suppose we should right? I mean why waste all that speed?

Its something that is not necessary.

What? That's a terrible metaphor. Maybe it would apply if we were discussing processor overclocking but in this case it's more like having to drive people between two destinations and using a minivan or a bus. We're talking capacity, not speed.

Originally Posted by LaughingCrow

Peter Bright at Ars Technica tried the monitoring programs and says this:

“So it was little surprise that, upon checking my reported stats on XPnet, I found that I too was in the "alarming" position of having virtually no free memory. A quick glance at Task Manager revealed the truth. Though my "free" memory is indeed negligible, this is because so much is used by cache. The important number is not "free," but "available." The "available" memory includes both memory that is free, and memory that can be trivially made available, and this figure is far more representative of the true amount of memory available to applications. The vast majority of cached memory can be freed up near-instantly, since it is used up merely by cached data from disk.”

Behind the Windows 7 memory usage scaremongering

Ah, thank you.

Somebody else brought up that they've been running more programs since they started running W7. I have too. I think most people will given the newer features like hovering over tasks to make everything but that window transparent, the much more effective taskbar design, and of course being able to split a screen equally between two windows just by click + drag. There are so many variables and so few controls in XPnet's "study" that it's, quite frankly, an insult to statistical analysis; a field I don't have a lot of love for in the first place.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by bovine.baron

Ah, thank you.

Somebody else brought up that they've been running more programs since they started running W7. I have too. I think most people will given the newer features like hovering over tasks to make everything but that window transparent, the much more effective taskbar design, and of course being able to split a screen equally between two windows just by click + drag. There are so many variables and so few controls in XPnet's "study" that it's, quite frankly, an insult to statistical analysis; a field I don't have a lot of love for in the first place.

All that to me and a lot of people is just flashy stuff to waste resources. I can't stand half the crap the new Aero introduced.

But to each their own.

[Eldonko]

I just read this article and it made me laugh. That is about the worst testing methodology Ive seen. They dont use the same amount of memory for comparison, it is a mixed bag and they say this:

"Barth acknowledged that XPnet's data couldn't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself, or an increased number of applications, but said that Devil Mountain would start working on finding which is the dominant factor in increased"

No to mention how XP and W7 handle mem use differently. Yup, great work.

[LarkStarr]

Originally Posted by Perineum

PFFFT.

Have you gone 220kph? There is absolutely no problems with it. It's just a bit quicker than 110kph.

But I do like your point about 220 and slow. Why do 220kph when you can do 240kph+?

I shouldn't type so late XD - slew!

and yeah actually I have driven 220+ (barely, but..) - impreza WRX.. so nice.. *kicks his 'trix*

I'm glad someone responded to that article with some appropriate education.